Dr Homan
C Kelly makes some very valid points. In 20 years at the sharp end of
disaster management in a variety of countries, I have been offered
numerous new technologies and told of their advantages but reliability has
been an overriding criterion for acceptance. If it will work when the
power is out or erratic; if it can be charged from a generator working on
dirty fuel; if it works when there is dust or torrential rain; if it is
easily portable; if it can stand rough treatment; if it is explainable to
suspicious customs officers; if it is reliable and gives faster answers;
and if it can be fixed easily and quickly when it goes wrong; then it has a
much better chance of acceptance.
As an example, satellite phones have gained increasing acceptance because
the Inmarsat M terminals are light reliable and flexible in use, easily
chargeable and operate in pretty difficult conditions. However GIS has
limited value in the field if you are trying to download information over
the satellite because there just is not time to accept the slow downloads.
In Gujarat earlier this year we would have welcomed GIS - there were no
maps available in the earthquake zone in the early stages of the disaster.
However, download times over satphones were prohibitive as the few phones
available had to be used for so many other purposes. At a later
conference I saw a satellite photo that was taken and available at the time
that would have met many urgent needs - we didn't know it existed so
couldn't ask for it even by air delivery.
Further back in coordination centres, there is increasing use of new
technologies but again, it need to be reliable in times of crisis and it
must be affordable - disaster preparedness is notoriously ill-funded for
the expectations placed upon it.
New technologies are invaluable in the planning and preparedness stages and
for research but cost can be a significant hindrance to acceptance. The
decision-makers often lack the technical skills to evaluate the best of a
bewildering array of solutions promoted by enthusiastic companies,
scientists and technicians. As a result they may either buy wrongly and
become wary of making decisions again, or may just avoid the spending
decision because it is too hard. They know they can operate in their
'comfort zone', albeit at less than optimal level, because they know the
capabilities of what they have (and possibly because disaster managers can
be just plain conservative when it comes to new and unproven technology).
The communication gap between the technical and research communities and
the field disaster management community is far too wide. Some people can
bridge it to the benefit of all and we need more people like that. However
the disaster manager can be dealing with a very wide range of disciplines
all of which impose pressures. There is rarely the luxury to delve deeply
- to paraphrase the old saying ' when you are up to your armpits in
alligators, it's very hard to remember that your aim in life is to drain
the swamp!' . We flounder along setting priorities and reacting to the
immediate situation on the basis of available information and hoping that
someday we will have time to think! The benefit of forums like this is the
exposure that is available to new ideas and the chance to hear other views
- we need more of them.
Joe Barr
At 10:50 AM 29/11/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Dr Jacqueline Homan,
>
>Your email raises several secondary question which I think other list
>members may want to comment on.
>
>The first is how quickly does the natural hazards management industry adopt
>new technology? I presume innovation adoption is rather fast at the hard
>science end of the business and slow at the response management end of the
>business. For instance the melding of GIS, GPS and remote sensed images is,
>I presume, old hat for geologist, but really cutting edge for your typical
>emergency manager.
>
>Second, to what degree is the use of technology in hazards management being
>pushed by industry and not by needs? A wearable computer sounds neat, but
>do you really need one (basically the question you ask)? Since most of the
>hazards management industry is very cost sensitive (being largely funded
>from the public purse), making the needs-base justification to spend money
>on new technology is probably more critical than actual utility.
>
>But awareness is also an important factor. I have worked on major disaster
>relief operations in the past 3 years where well established communications
>technologies were not used (but sorely needed) apparently because staff on
>the ground (and presumably in HQ) weren't aware of what was possible with
>off-the-shelf equipment.
>
>Finally, the problems with Iridium's hand-held sat phones suggests that
>"new" and "reliable" technologies are not always the same. Most emergency
>managers probably go for reliable but old technologies since disasters are
>often poor times to experiment. In other words, a wearable computer is
>fine, but will it survive having a 50 kg bag of grain dropped on it? A
>pencil and notebook would, and probably cost a lot less to replace.
>
>C. Kelly
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
|